Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the taking-the-time-to-understand-why dept.

Chesterton's Fence: A Lesson in Second Order Thinking:

A core component of making great decisions is understanding the rationale behind previous decisions. If we don't understand how we got "here," we run the risk of making things much worse.

When we seek to intervene in any system created by someone, it's not enough to view their decisions and choices simply as the consequences of first-order thinking because we can inadvertently create serious problems. Before changing anything, we should wonder whether they were using second-order thinking. Their reasons for making certain choices might be more complex than they seem at first. It's best to assume they knew things we don't or had experience we can't fathom, so we don't go for quick fixes and end up making things worse.

Second-order thinking is the practice of not just considering the consequences of our decisions but also the consequences of those consequences. Everyone can manage first-order thinking, which is just considering the immediate anticipated result of an action. It's simple and quick, usually requiring little effort. By comparison, second-order thinking is more complex and time-consuming. The fact that it is difficult and unusual is what makes the ability to do it such a powerful advantage.

Second-order thinking will get you extraordinary results, and so will learning to recognize when other people are using second-order thinking. To understand exactly why this is the case, let's consider Chesterton's Fence, described by G. K. Chesterton himself as follows:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Chesterton's Fence is a heuristic inspired by a quote from the writer and polymath G. K. Chesterton's 1929 book, The Thing. It's best known as being one of John F. Kennedy's favored sayings, as well as a principle Wikipedia encourages its editors to follow. In the book, Chesterton describes the classic case of the reformer who notices something, such as a fence, and fails to see the reason for its existence. However, before they decide to remove it, they must figure out why it exists in the first place. If they do not do this, they are likely to do more harm than good with its removal. In its most concise version, Chesterton's Fence states the following:

Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.

Chesterton went on to explain why this principle holds true, writing that fences don't grow out of the ground, nor do people build them in their sleep or during a fit of madness. He explained that fences are built by people who carefully planned them out and "had some reason for thinking [the fence] would be a good thing for somebody." Until we establish that reason, we have no business taking an ax to it. The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is. Otherwise, we may end up with unintended consequences: second- and third-order effects we don't want, spreading like ripples on a pond and causing damage for years.

[...] Chesterton's Fence is not an admonishment of anyone who tries to make improvements; it is a call to be aware of second-order thinking before intervening. It reminds us that we don't always know better than those who made decisions before us, and we can't see all the nuances to a situation until we're intimate with it. Unless we know why someone made a decision, we can't safely change it or conclude that they were wrong.

The first step before modifying an aspect of a system is to understand it. Observe it in full. Note how it interconnects with other aspects, including ones that might not be linked to you personally. Learn how it works, and then propose your change.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @09:47PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @09:47PM (#989926)

    Corporations are nothing but pirates with a license (charter) to practice piracy. The pirates form a government, and the government prints the license. That's what limited liability is all about. It is a simple "get out of jail free" card.

    There has to be suitable punishment for the board members and voting shareholders.

  • (Score: 2) by gznork26 on Sunday May 03 2020, @09:51PM (4 children)

    by gznork26 (1159) on Sunday May 03 2020, @09:51PM (#989929) Homepage Journal

    What would you suggest as appropriate punishment for board members and stockholders?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:28PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:28PM (#989942)

      Same punishment that is already on the books for everyone else. There's no reason to treat them differently.

      • (Score: 2) by gznork26 on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:48PM (2 children)

        by gznork26 (1159) on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:48PM (#989949) Homepage Journal

        That would probably have some interesting effects on the decisions that investors make about which corporations to buy shares in. The board has a direct responsibility over the actions of the corporation. In contrast, investors see only their money at risk, and are blind to corporate liability. There's also the difference between those who buy shares in the corporation, and those people and institutions who invest in funds that have shares in it. So there's a whole range of involvement in the crime. The ramifications of such punishment would be both widespread and fascinating.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:21PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:21PM (#989964)

          That would probably have some interesting effects on the decisions that investors make about which corporations to buy shares in.

          I should have specified voting stock investors. They should be held responsible along with the rest of the board. The others will just lose their investments. You can't go after every blind trust of course, unless criminal behavior had occurred before they bought in.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:32PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:32PM (#989970) Journal

          So there's a whole range of involvement in the crime. The ramifications of such punishment would be both widespread and fascinating.

          And in practice, it is. Even for employees, directors, and shareholders in the know who manage to avoid prosecution, there's always civil lawsuits from shareholders (and sometimes bond holders/lenders) who weren't in on the misdeeds.